Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/162

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Robin Calver, Principal Officer (Structures) Tel: 07741 607453

Report by Interim Corporate Director Communities (CMDE7).

Mitigation measures are required to protect the damaged narrow three span masonry arch bridge across the River Islip on the B4027 from further damage. A scheme comprising permanent traffic signals and other traffic management measures has been identified as the least-worst option, recognising that while inevitably leading to some traffic delays and queuing in the village it will help address long standing concerns over the safety of pedestrians crossing the bridge, where the only provision is a narrow ‘virtual’ footway using carriageway markings as there is no space for a kerbed footway.

Separately from the above proposal, a request has been received from Islip Parish Council to extend the 20mph speed limit on the B4027 Wheatley Road, which currently terminates just south of the above bridge to the current terminal point of the 30mph speed limit and to then provide a ‘buffer’ 40mph speed limit in place of the current 50mph speed limit south of Islip. Although the speed limit proposals were not identified in the context of the proposed signals, they are complementary in that lower speed limits would help mitigate the risk of shunt type accidents on the northbound approach of the B4027 into the village when vehicles are queuing on the approach to the signals.  

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve:

a)           the proposed traffic signals on the B4027 river bridge at Islip and the one-way restriction on Mill Street as advertised;

b)           the proposed 20mph and 40mph speed limits on the B4027 Wheatley Road as advertised.

In order to protect the damaged narrow three span masonry arch bridge across the River Islip on the B4027 from further damage a scheme comprising permanent traffic signals and other traffic management measures has been identified. While inevitably that would lead to some traffic delays and queuing in the village it was seen as the least-worst option to help address long standing concerns over the safety of pedestrians crossing the bridge, where the only provision was a narrow ‘virtual’ footway using carriageway markings. Separately from the above proposal, a request had been received from Islip Parish Council to extend the 20mph speed limit on the B4027 Wheatley Road, which currently terminated just south of the above bridge to the current terminal point of the 30mph speed limit and to then provide a ‘buffer’ 40mph speed limit in place of the current 50mph speed limit south of Islip. Although the speed limit proposals were not identified in the context of the proposed signals, they were complementary in that lower speed limits would help mitigate the risk of shunt type accidents on the northbound approach of the B4027 into the village when vehicles were queuing on the approach to the signals. 

Calum Miller objected to the proposed changes to traffic management on Islip bridge on the grounds that as the County Council had failed to conduct a fair consultation it was, therefore, unlawful and open to challenge. He suggested the proposal be withdrawn and a lawful consultation undertaken giving those affected by the proposed changes sufficient information and adequate time to respond. He considered the Cabinet Member was being misled as the proposed changes to Islip bridge had never been directly consulted on and the fact that a number of consultees had chosen to comment it should not be assumed that there had been a fair process. Consultation needed to occur when proposals were at a formative stage; giving sufficient reasons for any proposal and allowing adequate time to consider and respond. It was not reasonable for the county council to argue that publicising the minor change alerted interested parties to the more major proposal. Furthermore, the information provided in support of the minor change had been insufficient to allow consultees to understand how the different parts of the proposal joined so preventing a meaningful and informed response. There were no mitigating factors to justify this failure to consult fairly and rather than trying to sneak its proposal through behind a more minor change the county council should carry out a proper consultation on the management of traffic through the village.

Jenny Surtees agreed that the bridge needed remedial works but blocking agricultural machinery crossing the River Ray in Islip would cut them off from a significant portion of the land they farmed at Kirtlington affecting the viability of their business. Hard restrictions that prevented wide or tall machinery from crossing the bridge meant that any machinery would have to be moved via the A40 / Oxford ringroad / A34 which not only increased the journey to their nearest customer from 5 miles to 25 miles at increased cost but involved moving abnormal sized, slow moving loads on already very congested roads increasing the potential risk of accidents. The nature of their work was weather dependant so these movements could not be planned more than 12 hours in advance creating problems with police escorts and permissions.  There were four farmers based in the immediate area who farmed both sides of the river who would be affected with a loss of local jobs. The Islip ‘rat run’ was a symptom of the wider inadequacy of the surrounding road network and restricting traffic on this route would not solve the bridge issue but rather increase congestion & emissions as had happened during the 2019 & 2020 floods. Emergency service access would be affected and as an agricultural community they had already been affected by Brexit, the loss of the BPS payment & now Covid all of which they had weathered through sheer hardwork, commitment & determination but it would be impossible for them to overcome being physically cut-off from the majority of their business. She urged the Cabinet Member to reconsider how the weights and flow of traffic & work were managed in consultation with those most affected.

She also read a submission on behalf of Anthony Henman who farmed 1200 acres north and south of the Bridge as far afield as Begbroke and including land at Islip, Noke and Woodeaton since 1862. Part of their farming operations involved the movement of a Combine Harvester (and its associated convoy) which was 3.7 meters wide and involved a carefully orchestrated manoeuvre, stopping and redirecting traffic at strategic points through the village and stopping traffic going north up The Walk to enable them to bring the machine the wrong way down the one-way system. There was no other option as other routes were too narrow or congested with parked cars or impossible to pass due to the width and length of the machinery involved.  Before any decision was made, the farming community needed to be consulted to reach a mutually beneficial solution to maintain the safety of the bridge without denying them access to their livelihoods particularly during the busy harvest period. Installation of the proposed lights would make it impossible to get the combine harvester through the village because they would have no control over the flow of traffic and that would be devastating for their business.  They also had concerns with the increase in pollution from vehicles sitting at lights and the gridlock which could occur in other parts of the village. There was also the issue of how emergency services would pass through the village serving the local community. The B4027 was one of the least congested roads enabling a good route for ambulances travelling to the Accident and Emergency Department at the John Radcliffe Hospital which was particularly important for his family as his son had life threatening allergies and had been admitted twice to hospital in under a year, both times needing emergency assistance.  They considered this a badly thought out proposal and asked for a better alternative to be found to meet local requirements.

Harriet Bayly had lived in Islip for over 15 years next to the B4027 (the main route through the village) and consequently had long-standing experience of any changes in traffic flow through the village. As a family they were completely opposed to this recommendation.  The consultation had been extremely limited with insufficient information for the proposal to be properly considered with no traffic modelling data or modelling of levels of expected air and noise pollution.   Temporary traffic lights pre and during the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated the impact of both types of pollution which seriously impacted the health and wellbeing of residents and would likely exceed legal levels. There were issues of safety of pedestrians including nursery and school children walking to the village primary school at rush hour due to the change in the nature of the flow of the traffic with the lights increasing traffic queues with stationary traffic at various points through the village such as the High Street pinch point, which was already a dangerous point for pedestrians.  The lights might also perversely make it harder for pedestrians to cross the bridge. She requested that a clear and open discussion was needed about how the structure of the bridge could be protected (or ideally replaced), making it safer for pedestrians on the bridge and how the traffic in Islip could be better managed.  

Sami Cohen also expressed concerns about the consultation process. The initial consultation letter from the County Council had been entitled ‘Proposed One-Way Traffic Restriction – Mill Street (Islip)’ and had been limited to the proposal to introduce a one-way traffic system on a portion of Mill Street and sent only to those households in the immediate vicinity of the proposed change. The text of the letter went on to say that the one-way proposal was being put forward as a result of ‘the plan’ to introduce traffic signal controls on the Bridge with nothing about narrowing the bridge and putting three sets of traffic lights at specific points on and near it. These were clearly important and substantial proposals which, if implemented, would have significant and far-reaching consequences for the village and for many of its residents and local farmers who currently relied on the bridge to move farm vehicles and machinery yet neither the principle nor the practical details such as the precise locations of the proposed traffic lights had so far been the subject of a consultation with local residents who had received virtually no information to enable a proper evaluation of the proposals before making what she considered to be a premature decision.

Richard Washington reiterated the objections submitted in November 2020 concerning Kings Head Lane which was extremely narrow and bounded by high walls on both sides with no pavement for pedestrians and no possible place to escape from passing traffic and no other way for people in six properties to leave their homes on foot other than stepping into the traffic. The configuration of Kings Head Lane related to the proposed traffic lights in two important ways. Firstly traffic lights would replace a vital safety measure currently present in the form of signage which required traffic to come to a standstill at the bottom of Kings Head Lane whereas, if the proposals were implemented, traffic would move through Kings Head Lane without the need to stop. Kings Head Lane would be extremely dangerous under these conditions as evidenced by direct experience of temporary traffic lights in place in January 2021 and on occasions prior to that. The report missed the crucial point that concern for pedestrian safety derived from moving not stationary traffic. Kings Head Lane was the narrowest road through Islip and the only highway bounded by tall walls. The pollution dispersion potential was near zero and stationary traffic would lead to a rapid accumulation of pollutants. The response that the traffic lights would be phased to minimise queueing through the village was completely inadequate and the notion that there would be no consequential queues was wrong. Quite simply if the bridge was broken then it needed to be fixed.

Graham Davison advised that having moved to Islip in 2016 they had experienced the effects of temporary traffic lights on the bridge and the problems that caused with traffic queues building up very quickly outside their house and along the Bletchingdon Road even at non rush hour times, with an increase in both noise and pollution. As drivers became more frustrated with waiting, crossing the road became much more dangerous especially for the elderly, children, those with impaired vision, push chairs and wheelchairs. It was noticeable during the first lockdown in March 2020 how life had become much more pleasant by their house, with less noise and noticeably cleaner air. Many other roads in the village would be affected by the pollution caused by waiting traffic if traffic lights were installed and when there was flooding traffic was backed up well past the station. It would be better to either repair the bridge and construct a foot bridge or rebuild the bridge to benefit current residents and future generations rather than pursue a short-term solution which put lives at risk and costing a considerable amount of money.

Chris Brennan spoke as a stakeholder in Cherwell District Council’s ‘K5 Better Together’ partnership which covered wellbeing with a focus on helping to ‘improve opportunities for walking and cycling within Kidlington and surrounding villages’ including Islip. His specific concerns about the Islip Traffic proposals were to request three additional features to be incorporated into the scheme. Advanced stop line for cyclists approaching the traffic lights from the south as this was the direction where queues of vehicles might build up and so would assist both residents of Collice Street and Bridge Street who wanted to cycle to the local shop as well as assisting cyclists from outside the village approaching from Wheatley Road. ‘Keep clear’ road markings on the Wheatley Road by the junction with Collice Street and Bridge Street to assist residents of those streets when heading home and coming south over the bridge on a bicycle or in a car to turn right across queuing northbound traffic.  A contra-flow cycle lane on the one-way section of Mill Street so that east-bound cyclists did not have to follow the vehicle diversion up The Walk and down Kings Head Lane.

Wilf Stephenson considered the County Council had acted unlawfully and demonstrated contempt for the residents of Islip throughout the long saga of traffic over Islip Bridge. The County Council had failed to carry out the statutory fair consultation required for these proposals by consulting only in relation to the one-way traffic proposal for the end of Mill Street with no proper traffic surveys or environmental impact assessments carried out. The proposals took no account of the significantly greater frequency of flooding that now regularly closed the end of Mill Street and Lower Street, forcing all north/south traffic through the village to use King’s Head Lane. The proposals would force traffic to and from Mill Street to make dangerous turns from Church Lane into the Kidlington Road or from the Walk into King’s Head Lane and Middle Street with the latter requiring measures to allow safe passage of traffic through Church Square, including provision for the new bus stop on Cross Tree Green. He urged that the proposals be deferred and a proper consultation carried out to address the neglected repairs to Islip Bridge, volumes of traffic and the hazards to pedestrians.

County Councillor Dan Sames spoke in support of recommendation (b) but not (a). He had great reservations concerning lights at the bridge as on previous occasions that had resulted in traffic backing up and there was every expectation that that would happen again. He had tried to organise a local meeting but that had been difficult due to current restrictions but it was clear from the representations made at this meeting that there were strong objections to recommendation (a) and that such a major scheme clearly needed a full and thorough public consultation and as had been explained by previous speakers  it would be sensible to take a bit more time to find a better more suitable solution and he urged deferral of recommendation (a).

Written representations had been received from:

Brian Henman,Pegtop Farm setting out his concerns and objections to the proposed traffic scheme.

Nick Hedges suggesting closing the bridge except for cyclists and pedestrians.as being the most cost effective.

Islip Parish Council objecting the proposal in its current form. And while recognising the need for structural and/or mitigation work to the bridge to make it safe had been unable to assess either the validity of the proposals or the impact on the village of any associated works due to inadequate consultation. They supported the 20mph speed limit change on the Wheatley road, Islip.

The Cabinet Member thanked everyone for their full and informative submissions. Clearly there was a lot of local concern over the proposed mitigation measures but equally there was pressure on the County Council who were not in a position to replace the bridge yet were required to carry out  repairs and so a scheme would inevitably be required to enable those repairs to be carried out. Acknowledging the pressure on county officers she hoped that a few months delay would not exacerbate the situation with regard to the integrity of the bridge yet allow further consultation locally to make residents understand the urgency for repairs to be carried out and to come up with a more acceptable scheme. Therefore having regard to the information set out in the report before her and the representations made at the meeting the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed her decision as follows:

a)           Defer the proposed scheme for traffic signals on the B4027 river bridge at Islip and the one-way restriction on Mill Street as advertised in order toundertake further local consultation on the issues of traffic on and safety issues for the B4027 river bridge;

b)           Approve the proposed 20mph and 40mph speed limits on the B4027 Wheatley Road as advertised.

Signed…………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………………….